RE: [council] AWOL and the reform proposals

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Chuck,

>> responsibility of the Council under the proposed model and would add
to your examples the following: ensuring that policy development work
complies with Bylaws restrictions defining consensus policy development
(a change recommended in the recommendations) or, if the work does not
apply as possible consensus policy development, making that clear to the
working group in advance and throughout the process as needed.

This has been a discussion that has been happening in a few forums.

I have recommended that we distinguish between:

"GNSO Policy Recommendations" which generally refer to a policy for
implementation by ICANN staff (e.g new gTLDs, registry service approval
process, procedures for conflicts with national laws and ICANN contracts
with respect to WHOIS etc).

And

"GNSO Policy Recommendations for new Consensus Policies" which are
policies that are binding on registries and registrars.

The defined term "Consensus Policies" is related to the contracts with
registrars and registries, and such policies will be binding on
registrars and registries (e.g Transfers Policy, WHOIS data reminder
policy).

As Chuck has stated, it is important to establish expectations clearly
at the beginning of a PDP on what category the recommendations are
likely to fall into, and at the conclusion of the PDP it should also be
clear whether the recommendations are within the definition of
"Consensus Policies".

Unfortunately the term "consensus" has two meanings in the GNSO and
ICANN.   One definition relates to the degree of support for particular
recommendations (ie did the GNSO reach "consensus" on this
recommendation?), and the other definition relates to the contractual
term in the gTLD agreements  (ie is the policy a "Consensus Policy" as
defined in the registry/registrar agreement?).

There is also a need to consider defining the scope of the GNSO with
respect to areas of policy development to provide more clarity for the
community.   Some of the language developed in registry/registrar
agreements may be relevant.

E.g
"issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of
the Internet or DNS; "

"resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as
opposed to the use of such domain names)."

Etc

Regards,
Bruce











And

GNSO P